4 ms·

Not that I agree with it but the safe strategy for any big company is to ban anything that seems risky since 95% of content most users consume is benign which i

Not that I agree with it but the safe strategy for any big company is to ban anything that seems risky since 95% of content most users consume is benign which is what keeps them on the platform.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
vorpalhex 8y ago
If social media platforms have devolved into only cat memes and sponsored clothing shoots, that's pretty disappointing for the human race. While crackpots like Alex Jones are objectionable to all people of sense, I don't trust Facebook/Twitter/Et Al to act as arbitrators of free speech.
- 235rt2vf 8y ago
  They wouldn't have to be the arbitrators if there was a free market for social networking with different instances that set their own rules. The real issue is that Facebook is a publisher only when it benefits them, and a dumb pipe all other times. Either regulate it like a phone company, and force free speech on the platform, or force interoperability so Facebook alternatives can have a level playing field.
  - ddtaylor 8y ago
    YouTube seems to have had a lot of success with the same strategy. They are a private company and not required to host content that constitutes fair use because, well, terms of service says they can. I don't agree with it and it's one of the reasons I don't publish on the platform anymore.
- ddtaylor 8y ago
  The vast majority just want their cat memes and will actively avoid anything involving real politics that aren't essentially outrage porn.
- pteredactyl 8y ago
  This
joe_the_user 8y ago
I don't think banning anything provocative is a good strategy anymore. If anything, the triumph of Internet-logic over mainstream logic has involved a wide variety of people being willing to go out of their way to find provocative content. In a lot of ways, the broad mainstream seems like and often is bland, feel-good propaganda of its own - a product of both the cold war and media consolidation. Outrageous and destructive theories like Antivax or climate-change-denial circulate because it's easy for their proponents to point at an apparent group-think in the mainstream. Banning everything controversial out of a concern for self-defense rather than truth just maintains this situation. Now that that crazy and not-that-crazy dissent has a foothold, actually arguing with it is the only way to deal with these problem theories. Of course, that also involves confronting real, serious problems in our society, which might be relegating things to an ever-growing bin is desired by the mainstream. I mean, Jones' most common rant about "gay frogs" is a bizarro-mirror distorted version of a serious chemical pollution problem, estrogen analogue pollution, see; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenoestrogen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenoestrogen
- ddtaylor 8y ago
  > I don't think banning anything provocative is a good strategy anymore. If anything, the triumph of Internet-logic over mainstream logic has involved a wide variety of people being willing to go out of their way to find provocative content. Which users do you think bring in more ad-revenue? > In a lot of ways, the broad mainstream seems like and often is bland, feel-good propaganda of its own - a product of both the cold war and media consolidation. It's risk adverse content that goes out of it's way to avoid forming anything close to an opinion or offending anyone. I agree with your sentiment that banning any controversial discussion they essentially just move it somewhere else they cannot police, but I don't think those discussions are of much value to them because of the nature of advertising.
- pteredactyl 8y ago
  Agreed. And you should try hanging out with a bunch of Facebook, Google, or Apple employees on the weekend! Prepare for an exciting and novel conversation.

Not that I agree with it but the safe strategy for any big company is to ban anything that seems risky since 95% of content most users consume is benign which is what keeps them on the platform.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

vorpalhex 8y ago

If social media platforms have devolved into only cat memes and sponsored clothing shoots, that's pretty disappointing for the human race. While crackpots like Alex Jones are objectionable to all people of sense, I don't trust Facebook/Twitter/Et Al to act as arbitrators of free speech.

235rt2vf 8y ago
They wouldn't have to be the arbitrators if there was a free market for social networking with different instances that set their own rules. The real issue is that Facebook is a publisher only when it benefits them, and a dumb pipe all other times. Either regulate it like a phone company, and force free speech on the platform, or force interoperability so Facebook alternatives can have a level playing field.
- ddtaylor 8y ago
  YouTube seems to have had a lot of success with the same strategy. They are a private company and not required to host content that constitutes fair use because, well, terms of service says they can. I don't agree with it and it's one of the reasons I don't publish on the platform anymore.
ddtaylor 8y ago
The vast majority just want their cat memes and will actively avoid anything involving real politics that aren't essentially outrage porn.
pteredactyl 8y ago
This

joe_the_user 8y ago

I don't think banning anything provocative is a good strategy anymore. If anything, the triumph of Internet-logic over mainstream logic has involved a wide variety of people being willing to go out of their way to find provocative content. In a lot of ways, the broad mainstream seems like and often is bland, feel-good propaganda of its own - a product of both the cold war and media consolidation. Outrageous and destructive theories like Antivax or climate-change-denial circulate because it's easy for their proponents to point at an apparent group-think in the mainstream. Banning everything controversial out of a concern for self-defense rather than truth just maintains this situation. Now that that crazy and not-that-crazy dissent has a foothold, actually arguing with it is the only way to deal with these problem theories. Of course, that also involves confronting real, serious problems in our society, which might be relegating things to an ever-growing bin is desired by the mainstream. I mean, Jones' most common rant about "gay frogs" is a bizarro-mirror distorted version of a serious chemical pollution problem, estrogen analogue pollution, see; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenoestrogen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenoestrogen

ddtaylor 8y ago
> I don't think banning anything provocative is a good strategy anymore. If anything, the triumph of Internet-logic over mainstream logic has involved a wide variety of people being willing to go out of their way to find provocative content. Which users do you think bring in more ad-revenue? > In a lot of ways, the broad mainstream seems like and often is bland, feel-good propaganda of its own - a product of both the cold war and media consolidation. It's risk adverse content that goes out of it's way to avoid forming anything close to an opinion or offending anyone. I agree with your sentiment that banning any controversial discussion they essentially just move it somewhere else they cannot police, but I don't think those discussions are of much value to them because of the nature of advertising.
pteredactyl 8y ago
Agreed. And you should try hanging out with a bunch of Facebook, Google, or Apple employees on the weekend! Prepare for an exciting and novel conversation.